Comparison of Nutrigenomics Technology Interface Tools for Consumers and Health Professionals: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study

Paula Littlejohn, Irene Cop, Erin Brown, Rimi Afroze, Karen M Davison, Paula Littlejohn, Irene Cop, Erin Brown, Rimi Afroze, Karen M Davison

Abstract

Background: Although nutrition interventions are a widely accepted resource for the prevention of long-term health conditions, current approaches have not adequately reduced chronic disease morbidity. Nutrigenomics has great potential; however, it is complicated to implement. There is a need for products based on nutrition-related gene test results that are easily understood, accessible, and used.

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare a nonpractitioner-assisted direct-to-consumer self-driven approach to nutrigenomics versus an integrated and personalized practitioner-led method.

Methods: This 4-month study used a mixed-methods design that included (1) a phase 1 randomized controlled trial that examined the effectiveness of a multifaceted, nutrition-based gene test (components assessed included major nutrients, food tolerances, food taste and preferences, and micronutrients) in changing health behaviors, followed by (2) a qualitative investigation that explored participants' experiences. The study recruited 55 healthy males and females (aged 35-55 years) randomized as a 2:1 ratio where 36 received the intervention (gene test results plus integrated and personalized nutrition report) and 19 were assigned to the control group (gene test results report emailed). The primary outcomes of interest measures included changes in diet (nutrients, healthy eating index), changes in measures on General Self-efficacy and Health-Related Quality of Life scales, and anthropometrics (body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio) measured at baseline, post intervention (3 and 6 weeks), and the final visit (week 9 post intervention).

Results: Of the 478 individuals who expressed interest, 180 were invited (37.7%, 180/478) and completed the eligibility screening questionnaire; 73 of the 180 invited individuals (40.5%) were deemed eligible. Of the 73 individuals who were deemed to be eligible, 58 completed the baseline health questionnaire and food records (79%). Of these 58 individuals, 3 were excluded either because they did not complete all required data collection forms or were later found to be ineligible. The final sample (n=55) was mostly female (75%), married (85%), and those who had completed postsecondary education (62%).

Conclusions: This study will leverage quantitative and qualitative findings, which will guide the development of nutrigenomics-based products in electronic formats that are user-friendly for consumers and health professionals. Although the quantitative data have not been analyzed yet, the overwhelming interest in the study and the extremely high retention rate show that there is a great degree of interest in this field. Given this interest and the fact that nutrigenomics is an evolving science, a need for continued research exists to further the understanding of the role of genetic variation and its role and applications in nutrition practice.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03310814; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03310814 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yGnU5deB).

Registered report identifier: RR1-10.2196/9846.

Keywords: epigenomics; genomics; nutrigenetics; nutrigenomics.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: PL provides online nutrigenomics education.

©Paula Littlejohn, Irene Cop, Erin Brown, Rimi Afroze, Karen M Davison. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 11.06.2018.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of study design. RD: registered dietitian; I: intervention group; C: control group.

References

    1. Remington PL, Brownson RC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Fifty years of progress in chronic disease epidemiology and control. MMWR Suppl. 2011 Oct 07;60(4):70–7.
    1. Public Health Agency of Canada . How Healthy are Canadians? A Trend Analysis of the Health of Canadians from a Healthy Living and Chronic Disease Perspective. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada; 2016.
    1. Canadian Nurses Association . The Costs and Performance of Canada's Health System. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Nurses Association; 2013.
    1. Public Health Agency of Canada . Economic Burden of Illness in Canada 2005-2008. Ottawa, Canada: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2008.
    1. Institute of Medicine . Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000.
    1. Simopoulos AP. Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:53–68. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031809.130844.
    1. De Caterina R. Genetic and nutritional interactions in cardiovascular disease. World Rev Nutr Diet. 2011;102:150–5. doi: 10.1159/000327803.
    1. Ferguson LR. Nutrigenomics approaches to functional foods. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Mar;109(3):452–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.11.024.
    1. Tammen SA, Friso S, Choi S. Epigenetics: the link between nature and nurture. Mol Aspects Med. 2013 Jul;34(4):753–64. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2012.07.018.
    1. Berná G, Oliveras-López MJ, Jurado-Ruíz E, Tejedo J, Bedoya F, Soria B, Martín F. Nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics insights into diabetes etiopathogenesis. Nutrients. 2014 Nov 21;6(11):5338–69. doi: 10.3390/nu6115338.
    1. Fenech M, El-Sohemy A, Cahill L, Ferguson LR, French TA, Tai ES, Milner J, Koh W, Xie L, Zucker M, Buckley M, Cosgrove L, Lockett T, Fung KY, Head R. Nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics: viewpoints on the current status and applications in nutrition research and practice. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics. 2011;4(2):69–89. doi: 10.1159/000327772.
    1. Santilli F, Davì G, Patrono C. Homocysteine, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, folate status and atherothrombosis: a mechanistic and clinical perspective. Vascul Pharmacol. 2016 Mar;78:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.vph.2015.06.009.
    1. Tetik Vardarlı A, Harman E, Bozok Çetintaş V, Kayıkçıoğlu M, Vardarlı E, Zengi A, Küçükaslan AŞ, Eroğlu Z. Polymorphisms of lipid metabolism enzyme-coding genes in patients with diabetic dyslipidemia. Anatol J Cardiol. 2017 Apr;17(4):313–321. doi: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2016.7142.
    1. Marsaux CF, Celis-Morales C, Fallaize R, Macready AL, Kolossa S, Woolhead C, O'Donovan CB, Forster H, Navas-Carretero S, San-Cristobal R, Lambrinou C, Moschonis G, Surwillo A, Godlewska M, Goris A, Hoonhout J, Drevon CA, Manios Y, Traczyk I, Walsh MC, Gibney ER, Brennan L, Martinez JA, Lovegrove JA, Gibney MJ, Daniel H, Mathers JC, Saris WH. Effects of a web-based personalized intervention on physical activity in European adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 14;17(10):e231. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4660.
    1. Nielsen DE, El-Sohemy A. Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2014 Nov;9(11):e112665. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112665.
    1. Fenech MF. Nutriomes and personalised nutrition for DNA damage prevention, telomere integrity maintenance and cancer growth control. Cancer Treat Res. 2014;159:427–41. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38007-5_24.
    1. de Toro-Martín J, Arsenault BJ, Després J, Vohl MC. Precision nutrition: A review of personalized nutritional approaches for the prevention and management of metabolic syndrome. Nutrients. 2017 Aug 22;9(8):-. doi: 10.3390/nu9080913.
    1. Edwards KT, Huang CJ. Bridging the consumer-medical divide: how to regulate direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Hastings Cent Rep. 2014 May;44(3):17–9. doi: 10.1002/hast.310.
    1. Covolo L, Rubinelli S, Ceretti E, Gelatti U. Internet-based direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Dec 14;17(12):e279. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4378.
    1. Goldsmith L, Jackson L, O'Connor A, Skirton H. Direct-to-consumer genomic testing from the perspective of the health professional: a systematic review of the literature. J Community Genet. 2013 Apr;4(2):169–80. doi: 10.1007/s12687-012-0135-8.
    1. Livingstone KM, Celis-Morales C, Navas-Carretero S, San-Cristobal R, Macready AL, Fallaize R, Forster H, Woolhead C, O'Donovan CB, Marsaux CF, Kolossa S, Tsirigoti L, Lambrinou CP, Moschonis G, Godlewska M, Surwiłło A, Drevon CA, Manios Y, Traczyk I, Gibney ER, Brennan L, Walsh MC, Lovegrove JA, Saris WH, Daniel H, Gibney M, Martinez JA, Mathers JC, Food4Me Study Effect of an Internet-based, personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes associated with the Mediterranean diet: the Food4Me Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Aug;104(2):288–97. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.129049.
    1. Celis-Morales C, Marsaux CF, Livingstone KM, Navas-Carretero S, San-Cristobal R, Fallaize R, Macready AL, O'Donovan C, Woolhead C, Forster H, Kolossa S, Daniel H, Moschonis G, Mavrogianni C, Manios Y, Surwillo A, Traczyk I, Drevon CA, Grimaldi K, Bouwman J, Gibney MJ, Walsh MC, Gibney ER, Brennan L, Lovegrove JA, Martinez JA, Saris WH, Mathers JC. Can genetic-based advice help you lose weight? Findings from the Food4Me European randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 May;105(5):1204–1213. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.145680.
    1. Blumberg JB, Bailey RL, Sesso HD, Ulrich CM. The evolving role of multivitamin/multimineral supplement use among adults in the age of personalized nutrition. Nutrients. 2018 Feb 22;10(2) doi: 10.3390/nu10020248.
    1. Edelman C, Kudzma EC, Mandle CL. Health Promotion Throughout the Life Span. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier; 2014.
    1. Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics Seventh Edition. Pacific Grove, USA: Duxbury; 2010. p. 0538733497.
    1. Shannon J, Kirkley B, Ammerman A, Keyserling T, Kelsey K, DeVellis R, Simpson Jr RJ. Self-efficacy as a predictor of dietary change in a low-socioeconomic-status southern adult population. Health Educ Behav. 1997 Jun;24(3):357–68. doi: 10.1177/109019819702400308.
    1. Katcher HI, Ferdowsian HR, Hoover VJ, Cohen JL, Barnard ND. A worksite vegan nutrition program is well-accepted and improves health-related quality of life and work productivity. Ann Nutr Metab. 2010;56(4):245–52. doi: 10.1159/000288281.
    1. Health Canada . . Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada; 2011. [2018-04-01]. Eating Well With Canada's Food Guide .
    1. SurveyMonkey Inc . Surveymonkey. San Mateo, California, USA: 2017. [2018-04-01].
    1. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34.
    1. Slawson DL, Fitzgerald N, Morgan KT. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: the role of nutrition in health promotion and chronic disease prevention. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013 Jul;113(7):972–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2013.05.005.
    1. British Columbia Ministry of Health . British Columbia Nutrition Survey - Report on Food Group Use. Victoria, Canada: BC Ministry of Health Services; 2004.
    1. Grimaldi KA, van Ommen B, Ordovas JM, Parnell LD, Mathers JC, Bendik I, Brennan L, Celis-Morales C, Cirillo E, Daniel H, de Kok B, El-Sohemy A, Fairweather-Tait SJ, Fallaize R, Fenech M, Ferguson LR, Gibney ER, Gibney M, Gjelstad IM, Kaput J, Karlsen AS, Kolossa S, Lovegrove J, Macready AL, Marsaux CF, Alfredo MJ, Milagro F, Navas-Carretero S, Roche HM, Saris WH, Traczyk I, van Kranen H, Verschuren L, Virgili F, Weber P, Bouwman J. Proposed guidelines to evaluate scientific validity and evidence for genotype-based dietary advice. Genes Nutr. 2017 Dec;12:35. doi: 10.1186/s12263-017-0584-0.
    1. Garriguet D. Diet quality in Canada. Health Rep. 2009 Sep;20(3):41–52.
    1. Health Canada . BC Nutrition Survey Training Manual. Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada; 1999.
    1. Lowe MR. The effects of dieting on eating behavior: a three-factor model. Psychol Bull. 1993 Jul;114(1):100–21.
    1. Turner-Bowker DM, Bayliss MS, Ware JE, Kosinski M. Usefulness of the SF-8 Health Survey for comparing the impact of migraine and other conditions. Qual Life Res. 2003 Dec;12(8):1003–12.
    1. Ware J, Kosinski M, Dewey J, Gandek B. How to Score and Interpret Single-Item Health Status Measures: A Manual for Users of the SF-8 Health Survey. Boston, USA: QualyMetric; 2001.
    1. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in Health Psychology: A User's Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs. Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON; 1995. pp. 33–7.
    1. Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R. The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol. 2005 Sep;139(5):439–57. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457.
    1. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages of change in the modification of problem behaviors. Prog Behav Modif. 1992;28:183–218.
    1. Taylor HL, Jacobs DR, Schucker B, Knudsen J, Leon AS, Debacker G. A questionnaire for the assessment of leisure time physical activities. J Chronic Dis. 1978;31(12):741–55.
    1. Yu L, Buysse DJ, Germain A, Moul DE, Stover A, Dodds NE, Johnston KL, Pilkonis PA. Development of short forms from the PROMIS™ sleep disturbance and Sleep-Related Impairment item banks. Behav Sleep Med. 2011 Dec 28;10(1):6–24. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2012.636266.
    1. Statistics Canada . Canadian Community Health Survey. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada; 2010.
    1. ESHA Research Esha. 2017. [2018-04-01]. Food Processor SQL Version 11.4. Salem, USA
    1. Health Canada . Canadian Nutrient File. Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada; 2016.
    1. Stata Corporation . Stata Statistical Software: Release 12.1. College Station, USA: Stata Corporation; 2011.
    1. Sandelowski M. Qualitative analysis: what it is and how to begin. Res Nurs Health. 1995 Aug;18(4):371–5.
    1. QSR International Pty Ltd . NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software, Version 11. Victoria, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2015.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa